Did you cry at THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST?

Page 2 of 3 [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Do you cry at movies?
Aspie guy, and I cry at movies 14%  14%  [ 5 ]
Aspie guy, and I cry at movies 14%  14%  [ 5 ]
Aspie girl, and I cry at movies 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
Aspie girl, and I cry at movies 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
Aspie guy, no crying at movies 17%  17%  [ 6 ]
Aspie guy, no crying at movies 17%  17%  [ 6 ]
Aspie girl, no crying at movies 14%  14%  [ 5 ]
Aspie girl, no crying at movies 14%  14%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 36

stellacotton
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 71
Location: AZ.

21 Nov 2005, 1:25 pm

Ive been known to shed a discreet tear or two at the movies. :oops: Like in SW3 Revenge of the Sith or War of the Worlds but not Passion of the Christ. It was sooooo over the top imo-sorta like beating a dead horse-pardon the pun. :wink: That said-I think Jesus Christ Superstar is better done and I do cry when watching that-maybe because Im given a chance to actually like the character and get to know him and feel for him and it helps he has a good singing voice. :lol: Maybe my soul needs help because I didnt feel a connection with Jesus in Passion of the Christ? If anything it desensitized me so early on-Me thinks,I missed the message it was trying to convey. From a movie critic standpoint-I think Spartacus made a better Jesus.

Oh and I dont want to get into a theology debate but I dont know if the term sacrifice is fitting. In fact I may go so far as to say what Jesus did is a form of passive suicide-which is clearly forbidden according to Gods Laws :idea:


_________________
?I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.?
-- Albert Einstein


Last edited by stellacotton on 21 Nov 2005, 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

en_una_isla
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,876

21 Nov 2005, 1:50 pm

I didn't cry during that movie until... Jesus says to his mother, "Behold, I make all things new." And I started crying, but not a lot. I found the movie more disturbing than anything else. I don't cry easily, usually. And I cry over maybe 3% of the movies I've seen. I do go through periods where I feel emotional and cry a lot, but that is not common. I'm a very emotional person though, I just don't usually cry.

Quote:
he claims about anti-semitism are also utter crap. We could, of course, go into the probable traces of anti-semitism in the gospels themselves, but that's irrelevant here.


I do think this movie did contain some subtle Anti-Semitism. I saw it just once, but if memory serves, except for the scourging scene, Satan is never shown among the Romans-- only among the Jews.

I was most dissapointed to find out that the Attila the Hun costumes worn by the Sanhedrin's goons were completely fantasy. They looked so cool.

There was a lot of weird symbolism in that movie-- after the high priest punches Jesus out when he is brought before the Sanhedrin, Jesus is then shown with only one eye for the rest of the movie. The term for the Muslim antichrist is "one eye" (dajjal). A coincidence? And why is the last scene of Jesus' naked derriere? Isn't that disrespectful? It reminded me of the movie Terminator when he crash lands to earth.


_________________
!x75


Last edited by en_una_isla on 21 Nov 2005, 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

en_una_isla
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,876

21 Nov 2005, 1:52 pm

irishmic wrote:
My best friend and his wife were spit on by an Orthodox Nun.


Why? Please explain?


_________________
!x75


DrizzleMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 887

21 Nov 2005, 4:10 pm

GroovyDruid wrote:
Bec wrote:
The Passion of the Christ was just not a very good movie.


Ha! Good for you expressing your opinion! :D

I laugh because, of all the movies about which to make such a glib, assertive, unsupported statement, you picked the one that has the 9th highest US gross ever, $625+ million worldwide gross, and was seen by at least one out of every three adults in the US!

Priceless! :lol:


Popular doesn't necessarily equate to good. Is Big Brother good? :wink:
I can't comment on the Passion myself since I haven't seen it. But I think I'm more likely to cry because of a book than a movie. I've felt melancholic at the end of The Return of the King and A Beautiful Mind, but I can't remember crying out loud.



GroovyDruid
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 384
Location: where I decide

21 Nov 2005, 11:03 pm

DrizzleMan wrote:
Popular doesn't necessarily equate to good. :wink:


Obviously. Just look at the Harry Potter films. :o

Besides, I never said it did. I just said that he made a funny choice for a movie to pan unequivocally. :wink: :wink:

I think popular does mean good more often than is commonly acknowledged. There's a great book on the science behind this called The Wisdom of Crowds. Popularity as a phenomenon is underrated.


_________________
Whatever you can do,
Or dream you can do,
Begin it.
Boldness has genius,
Power and magic in it.

--Goethe


Thagomizer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 752
Location: MA

22 Nov 2005, 2:26 am

en_una_isla wrote:
I do think this movie did contain some subtle Anti-Semitism. I saw it just once, but if memory serves, except for the scourging scene, Satan is never shown among the Romans-- only among the Jews.
But Satan also appears to Jesus when he is alone, and by his/herself in the pit.

Quote:
There was a lot of weird symbolism in that movie-- after the high priest punches Jesus out when he is brought before the Sanhedrin, Jesus is then shown with only one eye for the rest of the movie. The term for the Muslim antichrist is "one eye" (dajjal). A coincidence?
Actually, I'm pretty sure this detail is inspired from the Shroud of Turin. Half of the man's face in the image appears swollen, and one eye is shut because of this.

Quote:
And why is the last scene of Jesus' naked derriere? Isn't that disrespectful? It reminded me of the movie Terminator when he crash lands to earth.
Yes, it reminded me of that too. But it's just one imaginative visualisation of the resurrection. I sort of liked the brevity of this shot, and the uplifitng music that followed.


_________________
"And lo, the beast looked upon the face of beauty. And beauty stayed his hand. And from that day on, he was as one dead."


Sarcastic_Name
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,593

22 Nov 2005, 4:27 pm

"i am sam" made me cry.

I thought Passion was boring, but mindless violence usually is for me.


_________________
Hello.


Bec
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,918

22 Nov 2005, 5:33 pm

GroovyDruid wrote:
Bec wrote:
The Passion of the Christ was just not a very good movie.


Ha! Good for you expressing your opinion! :D

I laugh because, of all the movies about which to make such a glib, assertive, unsupported statement, you picked the one that has the 9th highest US gross ever, $625+ million worldwide gross, and was seen by at least one out of every three adults in the US!

Priceless! :lol:


Exactly. It is my opinion. What support do you want? I just thought that it wasn't a good movie. By the way, the Passion of the Christ is actually 10th highest grossing in the US. As for highest grossing worldwide, here are the figures:

1. Titanic (1997) $1,835,300,000
2. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $1,129,219,252
3. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $968,600,000
4. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) $922,379,000
5. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) $921,600,000
6. Jurassic Park (1993) $919,700,000
7. Shrek 2 (2004) $880,871,036
8. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) $866,300,000
9. Finding Nemo (2003) $865,000,000
10. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) $860,700,000
11. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) $847,262,555
12. Independence Day (1996) $811,200,000
13. Spider-Man (2002) $806,700,000
14. Star Wars (1977) $797,900,000
15. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) $789,458,727

The Passion of the Christ is 26th.

GroovyDruid wrote:
I think popular does mean good more often than is commonly acknowledged. There's a great book on the science behind this called The Wisdom of Crowds. Popularity as a phenomenon is underrated.


The reason it made so much money in the US is because there are so many Christians in the US. Also the whole anti-semetic controversy helped it at the box office.



GroovyDruid
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 384
Location: where I decide

22 Nov 2005, 7:23 pm

Bec wrote:
Exactly. It is my opinion.


UuYep. That's what I said. It's your opinion.

Bec wrote:
What support do you want?


Where did I ask for support? I didn't ask for support. I was having a laugh. That's what this symbol means: ( :lol: ) A spontaneous outburst of merriment! Ha ha!

I found it funny because it was like saying, "That guy Newton just wasn't a deep thinker." It's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but a lot of people are going to argue with you.

Bec wrote:
I just thought that it wasn't a good movie.


Wait, you THOUGHT it wasn't a good movie? That's not what you said. You said it WASN'T a good movie. And don't say I'm splitting hairs here. You're the one who took the time to completely demolish my point that quite a few people liked THE PASSION by showing that it wasn't the 9th but the 10TH :o highest-grossing US movie. (I hide my face in shame. :cry: )

Bec wrote:
The reason it made so much money in the US is because there are so many Christians in the US.


That's an interesting theory, but I think it's an oversimplification. I'm not a Christian. Nor are any of my friends, and they all saw it.

Also, THE PASSION did very, very well in many areas with virtually no Christian population at all, so that argument kind of falls flat.

Bec wrote:
Also the whole anti-semetic controversy helped it at the box office.


Yeah. I wouldn't be surprised if Gibson paid off members of the Jewish clergy to go hatin' on his movie. Like PT Barnum said, "Any publicity is good publicity!"


_________________
Whatever you can do,
Or dream you can do,
Begin it.
Boldness has genius,
Power and magic in it.

--Goethe


Bec
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,918

22 Nov 2005, 7:54 pm

GroovyDruid wrote:
Bec wrote:
What support do you want?


Where did I ask for support? I didn't ask for support. I was having a laugh. That's what this symbol means: ( :lol: ) A spontaneous outburst of merriment! Ha ha!


You said it was an unsupported statement. It implies that you wanted me to support it.

GroovyDruid wrote:
I found it funny because it was like saying, "That guy Newton just wasn't a deep thinker." It's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but a lot of people are going to argue with you.


It's not nearly the same thing. So do you think all of the highest grossing movies are good movies? If not, then your agrument is hypocritical.

GroovyDruid wrote:
Bec wrote:
I just thought that it wasn't a good movie.


Wait, you THOUGHT it wasn't a good movie? That's not what you said. You said it WASN'T a good movie. And don't say I'm splitting hairs here. You're the one who took the time to completely demolish my point that quite a few people liked THE PASSION by showing that it wasn't the 9th but the 10TH :o highest-grossing US movie. (I hide my face in shame. :cry: )


You knew what I meant. It wasn't a good movie. Generally whether or not a movie is good, is based on personal opinion. Therefore, saying that 'it wasn't a good movie' versus 'I thought it wasn't a good movie' mean the same thing.

I only clarified that it was 10th not 9th. I was just clarifying something that you brought forth as factual information. I wasn't do that out of spite or to demolish your point, I was just pointing out that you looked over a detail. I did that so you could get your facts straight.

GroovyDruid wrote:
Bec wrote:
The reason it made so much money in the US is because there are so many Christians in the US.


That's an interesting theory, but I think it's an oversimplification. I'm not a Christian. Nor are any of my friends, and they all saw it.

Also, THE PASSION did very, very well in many areas with virtually no Christian population at all, so that argument kind of falls flat.


Did you read my next statement? Obviously not. That is not the only reason that it did well. What else helped it along at the box office? Hype. Read on...

Bec wrote:
Also the whole anti-semetic controversy helped it at the box office.


Seeing as this is a matter of opinon and a movie, it is a stupid thing to argue about, and I am sick of this.



GroovyDruid
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 384
Location: where I decide

24 Nov 2005, 7:28 pm

Bec wrote:
You said it was an unsupported statement. It implies that you wanted me to support it.


Hm. I didn't mean to imply any such thing. The truth was, it was an unsupported opinion. Nothing wrong with that. Gave me a good-natured laugh. I wasn't attacking you, still am not...

Bec wrote:
If not, then your agrument is hypocritical.


What is my argument here? I don't think I have an argument other than that a whole lotta people spent a whole lotta money on THE PASSION and would disagree with your evaluation (not that your evaluation is wrong). The hypocrisy evades me...

Bec wrote:
I only clarified that it was 10th not 9th. I was just clarifying something that you brought forth as factual information. I wasn't do that out of spite or to demolish your point, I was just pointing out that you looked over a detail. I did that so you could get your facts straight.


Cool. So then the correction was not a red herring to discredit my ideas. Boffo. Glad we cleared that up. Friends. :D

And by the way, when I read the article on THE PASSION, it was 9th all-time in the US. The rankings have changed since then. *shrug* My facts were a little outdated. That's all.

Bec wrote:
Seeing as this is a matter of opinon and a movie, it is a stupid thing to argue about, and I am sick of this.


Now don't take this as hostile, because I feel quite well dispossed toward you; but I disagree with you. I think this was a very important thing we've been discussing. A lot of people spoke out vehemently on both sides, and they don't usually do that about stupid things. Artistic expression is extraordinarily powerful and interesting to discuss, in my opinion.


_________________
Whatever you can do,
Or dream you can do,
Begin it.
Boldness has genius,
Power and magic in it.

--Goethe


Grievous
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 3 Oct 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 256
Location: Minnesota

30 Nov 2005, 11:39 pm

Thagomizer wrote:
[

Yes, I did cry when I watched Passion of the Christ. I don't cry very often at the movies, especially the ones that are supposed to move people to tears.

I'd heard all kinds of ridiculous claims about this movie. I had heard that it was an ultra-violent "snuff film", that it was exploitation, that it was anti-semitic, that it was just gory and hollow, that Mel is a psycho and an anti-semite. And well, when I went in to see it, I found ALL of those claims to be complete nonsense.

Yes, it WAS the most violent movie ever made. Yes, it should have been NC-17 for violence. They weren't wrong about that. But that alone is an observation and not a criticism. The people who say this is a "snuff film" are idiots and have obviously never seen one. Pornography is meant to arouse desire. Exploitation films are moronically shallow when we care to notice. Nor do they really understand the history and theology that makes the violence relevant. Reactions agains the violence in this film, though they would justify not wanting to see it, do not solely justify the unreasonably negative reviews.

Why is the passion of Christ important to meditate on? Without being preachy, I will say that Buddha and other religious leaders were speaking of similar things before Jesus, but they didn't sacrifice themselves for the sake of humanity that didn't deserve it. To discount the passion and only focus on Christ's teachings is to strip Christianity of it's reason for being and reduce it to a recepticle for moral platitudes that no good atheist could disagree with.

Of course the violence in "Passion of the Christ" is horrific, disgusting, repulsive, and unbelievably brutal. And, for the most part, it's accurate (I am not a historian or biblical scholar, and I can point out things about the movie that are inaccurate, but none of them bother me). This degree of violence shouldn't come as any surprise to someone who's a) read the gospels b) studied Roman history. Just about every Jesus movie made before this one either toned down the violence or romanticized it (the exception, perhaps, is "The Last Temptation of Christ", but it isn't nearly as bloody).

The remake of Dawn of the Dead de-throned Pasison of the Christ when it was released, and it was also an extreemely violent movie. Dawn of the Dead is clearly a more egregious display of violence (and there are countless movies ten times as guilty) that does not have meaning or context beyond escapist horror entertainment. Therefore, no one bothers to condemn it for having complete contempt for human life. Mindless, meaningless destruction seems to be acceptable for the people who bash this movie, but not when violence is actually portrayed in a manner that demonstrates either that it really hurts people, man's inhumanity to man (from a non-religious veiwpoint) or the single most important event in human history (from a religious viewpoint).

The claims about anti-semitism are also utter crap. We could, of course, go into the probable traces of anti-semitism in the gospels themselves, but that's irrelevant here. The people complaining that this movie is anti-semitic are overlooking the obvious facts that a) Jesus and his followers are jews b) Simon is a sympathetically portrayed jewish character (ever notice that no one who accuses this movie of being anti-semitic ever mentions this?) c) the Roman soldiers are portrayed as despicable, sadistic cretins and d) Pilate, despite having doubts as he did in the gospels, is STILL a ruthless prefect who would rather crucify and innocent man than take the risk of doing the right thing. That does not make him a good person. Roger Ebert was correct in his assessment that each of the characters in this movie represent themselves, and not their groups.

The anti-christian bigots who hate this movie are mostly just pissed off that Mel Gibson has made the most critic-proof movie ever made, out of his own pocket money, and there's not a goddamn thing they can do about it. And well, I'm glad that he did. In fact, I admire him even more for it. It's a rare thing indeed to see a film maker defy all the laws for box-office success, create a piece of art of intense personal importance to them, and succeed.

I like James Caviezel as Jesus. But I also liked Wilhelm Dafoe as Jesus, but maybe that's just me. Sometimes I think the actor's internal qualities for the role are more important than his ethnic background.

As for the rest of the movie, I thought it was masterfully made. The soundtrack, cinematography, acting, etc.

I don't cry very often at movies, like I said before. Sometimes, movies will make me cry at one point, but not the second time I watch them, and I will just feel manipulated. That's no so with the Passion. I've seen it thrice and every time it had the same effect on me. And no, it's not just because it's Jesus. It's because no one alive deserves his treatment. Were I not a believer, I would still have been moved and shaken by it. But being a believer, it is perhaps ten times more meaningful. I attended this film with a friend of mine who is not a believer, and he told me (as I wasn't watching the audience) that he'd never seen so many people cry at a movie.

There are only a handfull of other movies that have made me cry in my adult life:

Grave of the Fireflies
Dead Man Walking
Monster

(at the moment I can't really think of anything else)


STELLAR post!! !! ! :D I agree TOTALLY.

Also I really like your avatar!



TuDoDude
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 174
Location: South Texas coast

28 Dec 2005, 12:51 am

Although I have been known to be effected by certain movies I most assuredly did not express emotion at the viewing of The Passion... However, here in South Texas a large number of citizens are Catholic and I was rather surprised at their response during the movie which I saw at the dollar theatre. Men, women, and children were openly weeping by the film's end.

As relationships are tenuous and fragile movies that effect me are ones in which a relationship is destroyed beyond repair. Movies such as I am Sam, What Dreams may Become, and others are hard to watch.

GroovyDruid wrote:
Like a good number of aspies, crying is an emotion I rarely exhibit.

I don't cry when people die.
I don't cry when bad stuff happens to me.
I don't cry when I'm hurt.
I don't cry when I break up with girls.

I sometimes sniffle listening to Beethoven.

I watched Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST when it first came out on DVD about a year ago, and I bawled. I cried most of the way through. It was beautiful to me, and touching almost beyond expression.

I just watched it again with my father, who'd never seen it, and I cried again. I'm almost certain it was the first time since my first viewing a year ago.

Did anybody else have a similar experience with this film or some other one?



CRB
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 24 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 127
Location: South-Central Pennsylvania

28 Dec 2005, 12:39 pm

I often do not cry at movies except for a few (Platoon, Schindler's List, and Passion of the Christ). I began to cried when the Romans beat and whipped Jesus (Yeshua) into a pulp. Of course the movie was violent, but the truth was that Jesus died a violent death. The movie served as a graphic reminder of what Jesus went through to pay the punishment for my sins, and that in reality, I deserved that punishment for my own sins. It was a very powerful movie. As a Messianic Jew, I did not believe that the movie was anti-Semitic. In fact, the woman who played Mary (Miriam) in the movie was Jewish herself. Kudos to Mel Gibson for this movie.



Yupa
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2005
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,520
Location: Florida

28 Dec 2005, 9:38 pm

Who here agrees with me that Passion of the Christ was more of a comedy than anything? I thought 'Passion of the Christ' seemed a lot more like a Mel Brooks film than a Mel Gibson film. (Of course, both have equally poor "table manners" in their movies, if you get my meaning.)
It was pretty obvious that the crucifixion scene was intended to be comical. In fact, the crucifixion scene in this movie was almost funnier than the crucifixion scene in Life of Brian.
Everyone I watched 'Passion of the Christ' with was laughing out loud. One person choked on the soda he was drinking because he was laughing so hard at the movie.